- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Discussion > denver leagalises weed!
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
from: https://www.cannabisculture.ca/articles/4570.html
mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!
cole. x
from: https://www.cannabisculture.ca/articles/4570.html
Written by: www.cannabisculture.ca
DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%!
by CC Magazine update (01 Nov, 2005)
Denver voters make adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal.
Denver became the first city in the nation to make the private use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older as an alternative to alcohol, a far more harmful drug. By 10.45 p.m. Tuesday night, with 100% of the votes tallied, the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative had passed 53.49% YES to 46.51% NO.
The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative is the first local measure in the nation to draw a comparison between the harms of alcohol and marijuana.
The successful I-100 campaign focused on the vast number of health, safety and social problems associated with alcohol use, promoting marijuana use to avoid the prevalence of such problems. The campaign pointed to government reports and scholarly studies that show alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, as well as overdose deaths, whereas the use of marijuana has never been linked to such violent behavior and there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
"It is time our laws reflect the facts, and it is an indisputable fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, both to the user and to society," said Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER and coordinator of the I-100 campaign. "Current laws accept and even encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana, thus pushing people toward using a more harmful substance. Why on earth would we prohibit an adult from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol in their own home?"
By approving the I-100, the use of marijuana in public, the use of marijuana by people under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would all remain illegal, much like with alcohol.
Cannabis Culture will update this story as more details become available.
Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) is a Colorado-based non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the harmful consequences associated with alcohol, as compared to the safer — yet illegal — substance: marijuana.
Here is the language of the Initiative-100
Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative
WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and
WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and
WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, “About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offender’s use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking”; and
WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
________________________________________________________________________
TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE
(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)
Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.
mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I still disagree with the statements about Marijuana causing schitzophrenia. There are stuides which suggest a weak connection between marijuana use and schitzophrenia, but I have yet to see any stuides (and I have read several by now) that actually account for other relationships than causal. While I agree there is some weak evidence that marijuana may lead to the manifestation of schitzophrenic like symptoms in some individuals immediatly (episodes), they revert to normal after coming down. Those that do develop full blown schitzophrenia later in life are NOT extremely likely to develop it UNLESS they are priorly likely to develop schitzophrenia. In the one study I remember discussing way back, those that already met the chriteria for being at risk were twice as likely to develop it IF they used marijuana, HOWEVER those that were NOT priorly at risk were only 10% or 15% more likely to develop it, which is NOT statistically significant. Meaning that marijuana is not a significant predictor of later schitzophrenic development unless prior condition exists.
There I've had my go. Im sure Dave will be happy to point out that most people don't know if they are at risk for schitzophrenia.
As has been pointed out in other threads, don't the taxes on cigarettes overly compensate the NHS in the UK in comparison to smoking related health issues? I don't know, I havn't really checked, but someone else mentioned it... I wonder if alcohol taxes are similar?
And I challenge you to find me people who have smoked only canibis and developed cancer at a rate more significant than the rest of the population. A big hooplah is made about marijuana being more damaging to your health than cigarettes which is entirely unfounded because (a) people smoke a lot more cigarettes (b) cigarettes gum up the small airways of the lungs, which is where emphezema and other major medical issues arrrise (cancer), while marijuana does very little damage here at all. The "Marijuana is 10 times more damaging" thing comes from the fact that marijuana does 10x the damage to the large airways than cigarettes, which do next to no damage at all. Quick math problem, what's 10 x 0? Anyone?
Wow marijuana is being blamed as a gateway drug into cigarettes instead of the other way around... here in the US those usually go the other way around. As tobacco is more addicting than harroin physically supposedly, I can see where one might take issue with it on the gateway thing...
But as a stubborn American whose already incredulous that anyone would want to ruin perfectly good weed by mixing it with a foul tasting chemical mixture, I still disagree that the gateway argument is enough to make it illegal. You don't HAVE to smoke a spliff with tobacco, just like you don't HAVE to smoke a cigarette. If you would just get some decent pipes and smoke the same ammount of weed, and THEN smoke a cigarette if you want to, things wouldn't work this way. Sorry, but its true.
Your all silly. Bet you like to mix your corn into your mashed potatoes too don't you?
I still disagree with the statements about Marijuana causing schitzophrenia. There are stuides which suggest a weak connection between marijuana use and schitzophrenia, but I have yet to see any stuides (and I have read several by now) that actually account for other relationships than causal. While I agree there is some weak evidence that marijuana may lead to the manifestation of schitzophrenic like symptoms in some individuals immediatly (episodes), they revert to normal after coming down. Those that do develop full blown schitzophrenia later in life are NOT extremely likely to develop it UNLESS they are priorly likely to develop schitzophrenia. In the one study I remember discussing way back, those that already met the chriteria for being at risk were twice as likely to develop it IF they used marijuana, HOWEVER those that were NOT priorly at risk were only 10% or 15% more likely to develop it, which is NOT statistically significant. Meaning that marijuana is not a significant predictor of later schitzophrenic development unless prior condition exists.
There I've had my go. Im sure Dave will be happy to point out that most people don't know if they are at risk for schitzophrenia.
As has been pointed out in other threads, don't the taxes on cigarettes overly compensate the NHS in the UK in comparison to smoking related health issues? I don't know, I havn't really checked, but someone else mentioned it... I wonder if alcohol taxes are similar?
And I challenge you to find me people who have smoked only canibis and developed cancer at a rate more significant than the rest of the population. A big hooplah is made about marijuana being more damaging to your health than cigarettes which is entirely unfounded because (a) people smoke a lot more cigarettes (b) cigarettes gum up the small airways of the lungs, which is where emphezema and other major medical issues arrrise (cancer), while marijuana does very little damage here at all. The "Marijuana is 10 times more damaging" thing comes from the fact that marijuana does 10x the damage to the large airways than cigarettes, which do next to no damage at all. Quick math problem, what's 10 x 0? Anyone?
Wow marijuana is being blamed as a gateway drug into cigarettes instead of the other way around... here in the US those usually go the other way around. As tobacco is more addicting than harroin physically supposedly, I can see where one might take issue with it on the gateway thing...
But as a stubborn American whose already incredulous that anyone would want to ruin perfectly good weed by mixing it with a foul tasting chemical mixture, I still disagree that the gateway argument is enough to make it illegal. You don't HAVE to smoke a spliff with tobacco, just like you don't HAVE to smoke a cigarette. If you would just get some decent pipes and smoke the same ammount of weed, and THEN smoke a cigarette if you want to, things wouldn't work this way. Sorry, but its true.
Your all silly. Bet you like to mix your corn into your mashed potatoes too don't you?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I do, too. The cause of schizophrenia is not known, but it's almost certainly not marijuana.
Those studies show a very weak association, most of them aren't studies but case reports and almost always the patient had underlying psychopathology before presenting.
Written by: i8beefy2
I still disagree with the statements about Marijuana causing schitzophrenia.
I do, too. The cause of schizophrenia is not known, but it's almost certainly not marijuana.
Those studies show a very weak association, most of them aren't studies but case reports and almost always the patient had underlying psychopathology before presenting.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The definition of "deliberately screwing one's body over" is...?
Eating at McDonald's? Smoking? Spinning fire? Being a resident who doesn't get enough sleep? eating meat?
I am obsessive about my own health and I'm not perfect. I don't expect my patients to be, either.
Written by: Sethis
In America you pay for what your own health care costs. That's a great system to use in these circumstances. I think that people should have free healthcare (like the NHS) so long as they pay their taxes and don't deliberately screw their own bodies over.
The definition of "deliberately screwing one's body over" is...?
Eating at McDonald's? Smoking? Spinning fire? Being a resident who doesn't get enough sleep? eating meat?
I am obsessive about my own health and I'm not perfect. I don't expect my patients to be, either.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Stone, and everyone,
The *watches* statement is up here to let everyone know the mods are watching this thread. We have received several complaints for the way people are expressing themselves in this thread coming across as offensive and bigotted.
I have already editted one post for such content.
Remember you are allowed to have your opinions and your debates on this bb, but take the nastiness elsewhere.
Stone, and everyone,
The *watches* statement is up here to let everyone know the mods are watching this thread. We have received several complaints for the way people are expressing themselves in this thread coming across as offensive and bigotted.
I have already editted one post for such content.
Remember you are allowed to have your opinions and your debates on this bb, but take the nastiness elsewhere.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Pele, I know. It was a joke. Perhaps not a good one
So, now that you have brought up the “mods” thing. I would suggest that if a mod has something to say then they just say it, instead of beating around the bush.
Same goes for anonymously locking threads without giving a reason. I think a simple explanation could relieve a lot of agro. For example, the staff thread you locked when you moved house. We didn’t know what was going on for days after that, and everyone was blaming each other. Not good (ed.)
Now, back to business. I have rolex, cheep
EDITED_BY: Stone (1132779570)
Pele, I know. It was a joke. Perhaps not a good one
So, now that you have brought up the “mods” thing. I would suggest that if a mod has something to say then they just say it, instead of beating around the bush.
Same goes for anonymously locking threads without giving a reason. I think a simple explanation could relieve a lot of agro. For example, the staff thread you locked when you moved house. We didn’t know what was going on for days after that, and everyone was blaming each other. Not good (ed.)
Now, back to business. I have rolex, cheep
EDITED_BY: Stone (1132779570)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Smoking, Binge drinking, and doing Illegal drugs would be the main 3. Any kind of Drug abuse, really.
Written by: Doc Lightning
The definition of "deliberately screwing one's body over" is...?
Smoking, Binge drinking, and doing Illegal drugs would be the main 3. Any kind of Drug abuse, really.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Nastiness? I must have missed those statements... I thought we were all bein pretty cordial given some of the strongly held opinions several of us have on this subject...
Have anything in a pocket watch? Preferably silver, kinda classical? Aw, nevermind...
Nastiness? I must have missed those statements... I thought we were all bein pretty cordial given some of the strongly held opinions several of us have on this subject... Have anything in a pocket watch? Preferably silver, kinda classical? Aw, nevermind...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Nastiness is probably me and Colin J. We've elected to agree to disagree though, so more of the same should be avoided.
Nastiness is probably me and Colin J. We've elected to agree to disagree though, so more of the same should be avoided.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Funny. And I thought drug abuse/addiction was a disease in its own right...
Written by: Sethis
Smoking, Binge drinking, and doing Illegal drugs would be the main 3. Any kind of Drug abuse, really.
Funny. And I thought drug abuse/addiction was a disease in its own right...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think Sethis is just making the point that, with medical resources being over-stretched, it is feasible to draw a line and say that to go over that line, in terms of self-destructive behaviour, deprioritises you when it comes to receiving treatment.
To an extent this happens already- in the UK, to be elligible for a hip replacement operation you must be below a certain weight, as
1. doctors have to decide who gets the limited number of operations, and therefore have to prioritise
2. it's apparently been found that hip operations are wasted on highly obese patients as they detereorate rapidly.
When it comes to alcoholics requiring repeated and substantial medical intervention, purely as a consequence of them imbibing innapropriate amounts of alcohol; then, if it's a choice between treating them, or treating another patient who, once treated, will likely not be back in 6 months with the exact same self-caused problem- it would seem to make sense to prioritise the non-alcoholic.
And this is through sheer practicality, with no moral judgement, and that choice can be made with full acknowledgement that the alcoholic is suffering from a disease.
Of course, there is medical history involved in such choices- if a person is ill because of alcoholism, it is a developing thing, and certainly, early on they should be entitled to care. Part of that must include addressing their addiction, and require their sincere involvement.
However, twenty years down the line, if they're still wrecking their bodies with alcohol- despite the debate over whether or not that is their choice- in a world of limited medical resources, practicality has to come into play.
It's not a matter of whether it's wrong to be grossly obese, or alcoholic/drug-addict, or a smoker; and it is a fact that to be so, is to be the victim of an illness or addiction- but, in terms of practicality, when there's one organ available for transplant, isn't it, on the whole, best to earmark it for an individual who will take care of themselves and endevour to live a long and healthy life, rather than to an individual who requires it only because they wrecked their last one with alcohol, and, in all likelihood, will do exactly the same with this one?
I think Sethis is just making the point that, with medical resources being over-stretched, it is feasible to draw a line and say that to go over that line, in terms of self-destructive behaviour, deprioritises you when it comes to receiving treatment.
To an extent this happens already- in the UK, to be elligible for a hip replacement operation you must be below a certain weight, as
1. doctors have to decide who gets the limited number of operations, and therefore have to prioritise
2. it's apparently been found that hip operations are wasted on highly obese patients as they detereorate rapidly.
When it comes to alcoholics requiring repeated and substantial medical intervention, purely as a consequence of them imbibing innapropriate amounts of alcohol; then, if it's a choice between treating them, or treating another patient who, once treated, will likely not be back in 6 months with the exact same self-caused problem- it would seem to make sense to prioritise the non-alcoholic.
And this is through sheer practicality, with no moral judgement, and that choice can be made with full acknowledgement that the alcoholic is suffering from a disease.
Of course, there is medical history involved in such choices- if a person is ill because of alcoholism, it is a developing thing, and certainly, early on they should be entitled to care. Part of that must include addressing their addiction, and require their sincere involvement.
However, twenty years down the line, if they're still wrecking their bodies with alcohol- despite the debate over whether or not that is their choice- in a world of limited medical resources, practicality has to come into play.
It's not a matter of whether it's wrong to be grossly obese, or alcoholic/drug-addict, or a smoker; and it is a fact that to be so, is to be the victim of an illness or addiction- but, in terms of practicality, when there's one organ available for transplant, isn't it, on the whole, best to earmark it for an individual who will take care of themselves and endevour to live a long and healthy life, rather than to an individual who requires it only because they wrecked their last one with alcohol, and, in all likelihood, will do exactly the same with this one?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Thanks for fighting my corner, OWD. As always, you put it better than I probably could in a single post. Conciseness is a virtue indeed.
With regards to addiction being a disease, it isn't. You choose to imbibe the substance. No one forces you. People who can't possess enough self control to stop at 3 pints (or whatever) don't IMO deserve to recieve medical treatment when the resources could be used to help someone who has an illness that they did not make a conscious decision to have.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Everyone knows smoking, binge drinking and illegal drugs damage your body. For God's sake, ciggarette packets in the UK have "SMOKING KILLS" written on the side. Anyone who starts smoking, then thinks "Damn. I've got lung cancer. Let's go to the NHS for free care!" is irresponsible and inconsiderate.
Thanks for fighting my corner, OWD. As always, you put it better than I probably could in a single post. Conciseness is a virtue indeed.
With regards to addiction being a disease, it isn't. You choose to imbibe the substance. No one forces you. People who can't possess enough self control to stop at 3 pints (or whatever) don't IMO deserve to recieve medical treatment when the resources could be used to help someone who has an illness that they did not make a conscious decision to have.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Everyone knows smoking, binge drinking and illegal drugs damage your body. For God's sake, ciggarette packets in the UK have "SMOKING KILLS" written on the side. Anyone who starts smoking, then thinks "Damn. I've got lung cancer. Let's go to the NHS for free care!" is irresponsible and inconsiderate.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Wait so is addiction a disease or not? Sethis seems to hold that it is not, but rather is a matter of CHOICE, thus addiction does not constitute a removal of free choice as Dave seems to say. Dave seems to think it is, but a developed one made by poor choices. Whereas I seem to hold a view that it is a condition that is life-long, inherrent (not developed, but present prior to any imbibing of things), and has more to do with a LACK of self-control, ie it is a psychological deficiency in control. Thus it is difficult to control oneself when something that you enjoy so much is readily available and can be had with little difficulty, but controlling HOW much is used is very difficult indeed.
Note: I'm talking about psychological addiction. In terms of physical addiction, in smoking for instance, the physical addiction is over after little over a week. After that, relapses are purely psychological. There is no physical addiction in marijuana. As most people can make it past this point, but relapse anyway later during the psychological addictive phase, it seems this is more important than talking about addiction as a physical disease, but more as a psychological one.
Further, this is something that a great deal of people lack a good handle on apparently as so many people become addicted to different things, specifically because we are pleasure seeking beings. Cigarettes DO give pleasure, and little (apparent) pain at the beginning, and by the time the pain is apparent the habit is so engrained that it is tantamount to completely changing an aspect of your personality, and thus may very well require a great changearound in thinking to accomplish quitting.
Is this similar to your view Dave / the view of the book you've recommended to me?
Yes everyone knows these things are bad for them. Just like I know spinning fire is bad for me (inhaling fumes) and I could just as easily do it without the fire bit... but I enjoy the fire bit too much.
On another example, I think by this view I AM addicted to something. Food. I love it, I would eat constantly if I could, be really gluttinous. Now I still maintain a semi decent weight because I do something else I absolutly hate to keep from getting fat... I work out. But if there is food around, Im almost always eating it. I always have. Thus you could say I have a food addiction, and this goes far beyond necessary eating. Nor do I think I'm that alone, as smoking and obesity are two of the biggest killers of our era, it seems overindulgance seems to be the fashion and evil involved in both. Now true, I couldn't give up eating entirely so its not a perfect analogy, but for overindulgance's sake it works for the aspects I'm looking to examine.
==
Anyway, a little disjointed but my points are these...
The pleasure derived from such acts as smoking and drinking, eating and fire spinning, are not to be written of as trivial. They are real, and as pleasure seeking beings, it is understandable that we would want to go about indulging in these things if they bring pleasure, which they do, so they are not pointless.
The health issues involved in overuse / abuse are very real, just as obesity and lets say, fire breathers lung for fire breathers, are very real. Not everyone who abuses them will have these issues, true, but there is a much, much higher chance of developing them if you do them a lot. At the same time, it may be very hard to NOT do these things a lot because of how much you like them, and thus it becomes very different, and much easier to refrain from doing these things, once you have made up your mind that you really DON'T enjoy them, and you were just deluded, as Dave has been suggesting, and I believe the method by which the book he has been expounding is something similar to this. At least I hope so or Im lost...
Now as for this practicality thing, I agree, that replacing a lung (;)) or a liver is kind of pointless... if you will, its treating the symptoms and not the underlying problem (addiction / a tendancy toward overindulgance), whereas in the other patient its treating the actual underlying problem. However, I don't think I've ever seen a program devoted to treating the overarching problem of addictive personality / overindulgance... it is much more likely that people go to AA to treat addiction of Alcohol, or try all kindso f methods to stop smoking, only to latch onto some other addiction. For instance a lot of smokers tend to gain weight after stopping smoking because the oral addiction lends itself to eating more to compensate for the loss of the fullfillment of the addictive personality.
Hmm... on that I'm off to do some more reasearch on addiction, and to see if I might be wrong about overarching treatment plans for addictive personality / overindulgance. At the same time I wonder if treating people to break out of habitual trends in general would ever work in our society where habit and rewarded so thouroughly (reliance on schedules and time, etc.). Hmm... Hmmm indeed. Me thinks I'm going to have to have a talk with a few of my profs after break.
Wait so is addiction a disease or not? Sethis seems to hold that it is not, but rather is a matter of CHOICE, thus addiction does not constitute a removal of free choice as Dave seems to say. Dave seems to think it is, but a developed one made by poor choices. Whereas I seem to hold a view that it is a condition that is life-long, inherrent (not developed, but present prior to any imbibing of things), and has more to do with a LACK of self-control, ie it is a psychological deficiency in control. Thus it is difficult to control oneself when something that you enjoy so much is readily available and can be had with little difficulty, but controlling HOW much is used is very difficult indeed.
Note: I'm talking about psychological addiction. In terms of physical addiction, in smoking for instance, the physical addiction is over after little over a week. After that, relapses are purely psychological. There is no physical addiction in marijuana. As most people can make it past this point, but relapse anyway later during the psychological addictive phase, it seems this is more important than talking about addiction as a physical disease, but more as a psychological one.
Further, this is something that a great deal of people lack a good handle on apparently as so many people become addicted to different things, specifically because we are pleasure seeking beings. Cigarettes DO give pleasure, and little (apparent) pain at the beginning, and by the time the pain is apparent the habit is so engrained that it is tantamount to completely changing an aspect of your personality, and thus may very well require a great changearound in thinking to accomplish quitting.
Is this similar to your view Dave / the view of the book you've recommended to me?
Yes everyone knows these things are bad for them. Just like I know spinning fire is bad for me (inhaling fumes) and I could just as easily do it without the fire bit... but I enjoy the fire bit too much.
On another example, I think by this view I AM addicted to something. Food. I love it, I would eat constantly if I could, be really gluttinous. Now I still maintain a semi decent weight because I do something else I absolutly hate to keep from getting fat... I work out. But if there is food around, Im almost always eating it. I always have. Thus you could say I have a food addiction, and this goes far beyond necessary eating. Nor do I think I'm that alone, as smoking and obesity are two of the biggest killers of our era, it seems overindulgance seems to be the fashion and evil involved in both. Now true, I couldn't give up eating entirely so its not a perfect analogy, but for overindulgance's sake it works for the aspects I'm looking to examine.
==
Anyway, a little disjointed but my points are these...
The pleasure derived from such acts as smoking and drinking, eating and fire spinning, are not to be written of as trivial. They are real, and as pleasure seeking beings, it is understandable that we would want to go about indulging in these things if they bring pleasure, which they do, so they are not pointless.
The health issues involved in overuse / abuse are very real, just as obesity and lets say, fire breathers lung for fire breathers, are very real. Not everyone who abuses them will have these issues, true, but there is a much, much higher chance of developing them if you do them a lot. At the same time, it may be very hard to NOT do these things a lot because of how much you like them, and thus it becomes very different, and much easier to refrain from doing these things, once you have made up your mind that you really DON'T enjoy them, and you were just deluded, as Dave has been suggesting, and I believe the method by which the book he has been expounding is something similar to this. At least I hope so or Im lost...
Now as for this practicality thing, I agree, that replacing a lung (;)) or a liver is kind of pointless... if you will, its treating the symptoms and not the underlying problem (addiction / a tendancy toward overindulgance), whereas in the other patient its treating the actual underlying problem. However, I don't think I've ever seen a program devoted to treating the overarching problem of addictive personality / overindulgance... it is much more likely that people go to AA to treat addiction of Alcohol, or try all kindso f methods to stop smoking, only to latch onto some other addiction. For instance a lot of smokers tend to gain weight after stopping smoking because the oral addiction lends itself to eating more to compensate for the loss of the fullfillment of the addictive personality.
Hmm... on that I'm off to do some more reasearch on addiction, and to see if I might be wrong about overarching treatment plans for addictive personality / overindulgance. At the same time I wonder if treating people to break out of habitual trends in general would ever work in our society where habit and rewarded so thouroughly (reliance on schedules and time, etc.). Hmm... Hmmm indeed. Me thinks I'm going to have to have a talk with a few of my profs after break.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Addiction is a complex thing, and I would imagine it manifests in different ways in different people.
Is it a disease?
There is apparently evidence that shows that addictive tendencies can be genetically inherited; this doesn't mean of course that it always, or even usually is.
My feelings are that there could well be a minority of individuals whose addiction is purely genetic/a disease beyond their control, and that there are a minority for whom the opposite is the case, and this latter group, can overcome it by sheer will.
And, in between is everyone else, with part of it being due to genetics, and part due to bad choice.
With smoking, my belief is that, once addicted, and on a regular heavy/moderate usage; you will probably be a victim, unable to choose to stop- quitting will require a combination of hard work, intelligence and luck- most attempts will fail.
In that scenario, whether or not it's genetic, or a disease, is fairly irrelevant- you're addicted, and you've got a problem.
However, good choices before that stage are available to all- if you don't mess with cigarettes, you won't get addicted- even if you're genetically pre-disposed to addictive tendencies.
My feelings are that, where scientific research is concerned- do investigate the genetic/disease factor; but, when it comes to the practicalities of being an addict, and wanting to escape, that to focus on the possibility that one may be a victim of genetics, is not helpful.
Addiction tends to be associated with depressive tendencies and a 'victim' mentality- these factors reinforce each other; addicts also tend to blame their situation on external factors, and doing so tends to help keep the addiction going.
In contrast, escaping addiction successfully, is, IMO, going to be helped by focusing on taking responsibility (not blame- responsibility)- what are you doing: what in your ingrained habits and patterns of behaviour/thought; is helping to sustain habitual use of the substance?
Despite the fact that there are both internal factors (theoretically within your control) and external factors (like genetics- not in your control)- it is up to you which you focus on, and, by focusing on the factors you can change, and not moping over the ones you can't- you maximise the chances of success.
Most important of all- if you're a non-smoker, do not try cigarettes- ever, under any circumstances. Of all drugs, it seems that cigarettes are one that, in the vast majority of people, control is virtually impossible.
With alcohol- my advice is ignore the peer/cultural hype that says it is necessary or conducive to having a good time; trust me, you do not need alcohol, or any drug, to have a good time.
Weed- IMO, probably the least problematic as long as you never mix it with tobacco- but, again, not necessary for a good time; however, get into the habit of using it, and you may well start to feel reliant upon it for enjoying yourself. My advice, save your money.
If you're not happy with aspects of your life, my advice is, at risk of sounding simplistic-
1. acceptance of what you can't yet change (we live in the west, our problems tend to be relatively minor ones, we're not starving or seeing our families gunned down)
2. change what you can
Turning to drugs tends to both:-
a. make your problems worse
b. hinder your ability to carry out 1 & 2 above.
And this is the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise- no-one needs any drugs to enjoy their life to the fullest.
Yes, many can use alcohol/weed, as they put it, recreationally ie in control.
But, the fact remains that none of us need to use them at all- it's a lie, perpetuated by our culture, and drummed into us from a young age.
Even 'recreational' users of alcohol/weed, though they may not be destroying themselves, are harming themselves to some degree; and they're the lucky ones, because a minority will end up as out-of-control alcoholics.
I'm not into preaching about the dangers of alcohol and drugs, but I'm becoming very keen on stressing what appears to be a little understood fact-
that a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it.
(and, that this doesn't have to be associated with religious fanatisism or seen as some extreme 'straight-edge' self-deprivation thing: rather it's just a straightforward and common sense approach to living a good and happy life).
Addiction is a complex thing, and I would imagine it manifests in different ways in different people.
Is it a disease?
There is apparently evidence that shows that addictive tendencies can be genetically inherited; this doesn't mean of course that it always, or even usually is.
My feelings are that there could well be a minority of individuals whose addiction is purely genetic/a disease beyond their control, and that there are a minority for whom the opposite is the case, and this latter group, can overcome it by sheer will.
And, in between is everyone else, with part of it being due to genetics, and part due to bad choice.
With smoking, my belief is that, once addicted, and on a regular heavy/moderate usage; you will probably be a victim, unable to choose to stop- quitting will require a combination of hard work, intelligence and luck- most attempts will fail.
In that scenario, whether or not it's genetic, or a disease, is fairly irrelevant- you're addicted, and you've got a problem.
However, good choices before that stage are available to all- if you don't mess with cigarettes, you won't get addicted- even if you're genetically pre-disposed to addictive tendencies.
My feelings are that, where scientific research is concerned- do investigate the genetic/disease factor; but, when it comes to the practicalities of being an addict, and wanting to escape, that to focus on the possibility that one may be a victim of genetics, is not helpful.
Addiction tends to be associated with depressive tendencies and a 'victim' mentality- these factors reinforce each other; addicts also tend to blame their situation on external factors, and doing so tends to help keep the addiction going.
In contrast, escaping addiction successfully, is, IMO, going to be helped by focusing on taking responsibility (not blame- responsibility)- what are you doing: what in your ingrained habits and patterns of behaviour/thought; is helping to sustain habitual use of the substance?
Despite the fact that there are both internal factors (theoretically within your control) and external factors (like genetics- not in your control)- it is up to you which you focus on, and, by focusing on the factors you can change, and not moping over the ones you can't- you maximise the chances of success.
Most important of all- if you're a non-smoker, do not try cigarettes- ever, under any circumstances. Of all drugs, it seems that cigarettes are one that, in the vast majority of people, control is virtually impossible.
With alcohol- my advice is ignore the peer/cultural hype that says it is necessary or conducive to having a good time; trust me, you do not need alcohol, or any drug, to have a good time.
Weed- IMO, probably the least problematic as long as you never mix it with tobacco- but, again, not necessary for a good time; however, get into the habit of using it, and you may well start to feel reliant upon it for enjoying yourself. My advice, save your money.
If you're not happy with aspects of your life, my advice is, at risk of sounding simplistic-
1. acceptance of what you can't yet change (we live in the west, our problems tend to be relatively minor ones, we're not starving or seeing our families gunned down)
2. change what you can
Turning to drugs tends to both:-
a. make your problems worse
b. hinder your ability to carry out 1 & 2 above.
And this is the amazing truth that no-one seems to realise- no-one needs any drugs to enjoy their life to the fullest.
Yes, many can use alcohol/weed, as they put it, recreationally ie in control.
But, the fact remains that none of us need to use them at all- it's a lie, perpetuated by our culture, and drummed into us from a young age.
Even 'recreational' users of alcohol/weed, though they may not be destroying themselves, are harming themselves to some degree; and they're the lucky ones, because a minority will end up as out-of-control alcoholics.
I'm not into preaching about the dangers of alcohol and drugs, but I'm becoming very keen on stressing what appears to be a little understood fact-
that a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it.
(and, that this doesn't have to be associated with religious fanatisism or seen as some extreme 'straight-edge' self-deprivation thing: rather it's just a straightforward and common sense approach to living a good and happy life).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
hmmmm....can't really agree with that.
Don't forget most of the population (ie over 50%) have grown in a society where due to it's illegal status haven't tried it/come into contact with it regularly enough/had easy enough access to/been brave enough to buy it due to fearing the law, to develop a taste for weed instead of booze. Where as alcohol is available pretty much anywhere, globally, making it far more likely to be the preference. Should the change in law (moot or not) lead to such a shift in opinion that it becomes as socially acceptable to comsume marijuana as it is currently to consume alcohol, I'm sure alcohol consumption per capita would be greatly reduced and to balance marijuana consumption per capita would increase.
I wouldn't want to enter any kind of debate as to which situation would benefit the population the greatest 
And I'd like to say HELLO POUNCE!
Nice to see you about again 
Written by: Doc Lightning
I am aware of no good evidence that availability of marijuana in any way decreases alcohol use. There are people who don't like to drink and who like to smoke, but in the absence of marijuana those people don't usually drink to substitute. There are people who like both and they're unlikely to drink less because marijuana is available, and there are people who like to drink and don't like to smoke and this will have no real effect on them........So I predict that this will have no measurable effect on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related morbidity and/or mortality.
hmmmm....can't really agree with that.
Don't forget most of the population (ie over 50%) have grown in a society where due to it's illegal status haven't tried it/come into contact with it regularly enough/had easy enough access to/been brave enough to buy it due to fearing the law, to develop a taste for weed instead of booze. Where as alcohol is available pretty much anywhere, globally, making it far more likely to be the preference. Should the change in law (moot or not) lead to such a shift in opinion that it becomes as socially acceptable to comsume marijuana as it is currently to consume alcohol, I'm sure alcohol consumption per capita would be greatly reduced and to balance marijuana consumption per capita would increase.
I wouldn't want to enter any kind of debate as to which situation would benefit the population the greatest
And I'd like to say HELLO POUNCE!
Nice to see you about again Let's relight this forum 
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Clearly Dave, if medical resources are over-stretched, the more resources need to be put back into the system or redirected from say playing soldiers. Or else, the next thing you know medical decisions will be based on IQ.
Clearly Dave, if medical resources are over-stretched, the more resources need to be put back into the system or redirected from say playing soldiers. Or else, the next thing you know medical decisions will be based on IQ.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't see how a patients IQ would be of relevance in apportioning medical resources.
Certainly not in the way that a hip operation will be prioritised to those who will benefit from it in a way that a heavily obese patient won't; or in the way that a non-alcoholic patient will get real use from a transplanted organ that, if given to a hopeless alcoholic, would simply get ruined.
IQ strikes me as irrelevant, in that context.
I don't see how a patients IQ would be of relevance in apportioning medical resources.
Certainly not in the way that a hip operation will be prioritised to those who will benefit from it in a way that a heavily obese patient won't; or in the way that a non-alcoholic patient will get real use from a transplanted organ that, if given to a hopeless alcoholic, would simply get ruined.
IQ strikes me as irrelevant, in that context.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, surely all people should have the same access to medical resources, without people making moral judgements on who should be treated. Like a younger person would be given preference over an older person. So, I suggest putting more resources into the health system, and then you won’t be forced into making moral decisions on IQ, hip’s, age or socio economic backgrounds
Dave, surely all people should have the same access to medical resources, without people making moral judgements on who should be treated. Like a younger person would be given preference over an older person. So, I suggest putting more resources into the health system, and then you won’t be forced into making moral decisions on IQ, hip’s, age or socio economic backgrounds
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
We're not making moral decisions based on IQ, Hips, Age or Socio-Economic grounds. I was basing it on how much the person is to blame for their own condition. If I get lung cancer (being a fire breather) or chemical pneumonia, then I admit that it is mostly my own fault, and will indeed probably try and go private for treatment.
Smokers are to blame for their illnesses.
Alcoholics are to blame for the state of their livers.
Dope-Smokers are to blame for the condition of their minds/bodies (whether they cut it with tobacco or not).
If they aren't, who is?
Seems fairly logical to me that if someone wants to destroy their own body in a way that does not benefit society, then society shouldn't have to pay for their treatment.
We're not making moral decisions based on IQ, Hips, Age or Socio-Economic grounds. I was basing it on how much the person is to blame for their own condition. If I get lung cancer (being a fire breather) or chemical pneumonia, then I admit that it is mostly my own fault, and will indeed probably try and go private for treatment.
Smokers are to blame for their illnesses.
Alcoholics are to blame for the state of their livers.
Dope-Smokers are to blame for the condition of their minds/bodies (whether they cut it with tobacco or not).
If they aren't, who is?
Seems fairly logical to me that if someone wants to destroy their own body in a way that does not benefit society, then society shouldn't have to pay for their treatment.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
And I wasn't suggesting making moral decisions at all.
If you've got a limited resource, and you need to allocate it, then, given the choice between giving to to someone who it will be wasted on, and someone who it won't be wasted on, it seems sensible to, on balance, give it to the latter.
It's practiciality, not making moral judgements.
Is a heavy smoker immoral? Not in my view- they are a victim.
It would, IMO, be wrong to deny them an operation as punishment for them being heavy smokers.
However, if they are considerably more likely to die during the op, and/or the op is likely to be ineffective if they do survive it, due to them continuing to damage their body with smoking; then it seems best to give preference to a non-smoker.
And I wasn't suggesting making moral decisions at all.
If you've got a limited resource, and you need to allocate it, then, given the choice between giving to to someone who it will be wasted on, and someone who it won't be wasted on, it seems sensible to, on balance, give it to the latter.
It's practiciality, not making moral judgements.
Is a heavy smoker immoral? Not in my view- they are a victim.
It would, IMO, be wrong to deny them an operation as punishment for them being heavy smokers.
However, if they are considerably more likely to die during the op, and/or the op is likely to be ineffective if they do survive it, due to them continuing to damage their body with smoking; then it seems best to give preference to a non-smoker.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
So Sethis I don’t agree with you and OWD, big deal. And what’s logic got to do with it? What are you going to do when you wake up in emergency with chemical pneumonia? Say don’t treat me. Or should OWD fall from his uni cycle. Will he say don’t treat me, because no-one need to ride a uni cycle.
I think all people should have the same access to medical resources regardless. After all, alcohol and smokes are legal, and the Gov takes it’s slice in tax.
So Sethis I don’t agree with you and OWD, big deal. And what’s logic got to do with it? What are you going to do when you wake up in emergency with chemical pneumonia? Say don’t treat me. Or should OWD fall from his uni cycle. Will he say don’t treat me, because no-one need to ride a uni cycle.
I think all people should have the same access to medical resources regardless. After all, alcohol and smokes are legal, and the Gov takes it’s slice in tax.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I didn't say it was a big deal. I was questioning the basis on which you made the implication that I/we was/were making a moral choice on who gets medical treatment.
I disapprove of smoking and binge drinking, but that doesn't mean it's Immoral. I'm not conceited enough to think that my view of how to take care of your body is the only ethically correct one. OWD was pointing out that it's only logical to give the operation/transplant/whatever to whoever is going to make it last the longest.
And if I collapse a lung fire breathing, or Dave somehow compound fractures his ankle, then I for one won't wake up in A+E shouting "Nooooo!!! Don't Operate!!! This was entirely my fault and I demand to be able to pay for my own Operation!!" because I would need emergency care or I would die. After the operation I would be perfectly willing to discuss my payment for services rendered, or find out where to go for long term health care.
And everyone should have access to medical resources, but some people should have to pay more for it in my opinion.
I didn't say it was a big deal. I was questioning the basis on which you made the implication that I/we was/were making a moral choice on who gets medical treatment.
I disapprove of smoking and binge drinking, but that doesn't mean it's Immoral. I'm not conceited enough to think that my view of how to take care of your body is the only ethically correct one. OWD was pointing out that it's only logical to give the operation/transplant/whatever to whoever is going to make it last the longest.
And if I collapse a lung fire breathing, or Dave somehow compound fractures his ankle, then I for one won't wake up in A+E shouting "Nooooo!!! Don't Operate!!! This was entirely my fault and I demand to be able to pay for my own Operation!!" because I would need emergency care or I would die. After the operation I would be perfectly willing to discuss my payment for services rendered, or find out where to go for long term health care.
And everyone should have access to medical resources, but some people should have to pay more for it in my opinion.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Personally, if you've paid the same in (ie % of your income/benifit/anything else you can think of as income tax etc) you deserve equal out. If from smoking I'm more likely to use the service than those who do not then either discount my income tax and let me pay for my own private medical treatment or shut up and wait your turn like every other tax payer in the uk (inc those on benifits etc as I see no distiction).
You jsut can't draw the line! If I never bother looking when I cross the road cuz I don't care but one day get run over I'm still entitled to treatment from the service I fund no matter how careless I deliberately was.
With regard to prioritisation, although I understand it's use there are some fundamental floors...ie...if I'm old and probably only have 2 years left in me but need a new hip, or lungs from smoking all my life, then damn why shouldn't I get them before some young athlete who's been in a car smash that also needs a hip or some 6 year old who's got some lung desease if I was waiting first? Id have funded the NHS for 45 years and think that would make me just as deserving as anyone else. Prioritisation sucks.
Sit down, take your turn, pray they manage it FIFO (first in, first out) and stop yer whinging. You could be in America with 40% income tax and no real national health service to speak of. Count your blessings you bunch of moaners.
If an much emphasis was put into the operating efficiency of the NHS and ridding some of the huuuuuuge wastes that they have from operating a bungling archaic system as they put into prioritisation and "who deserves more" and other bullshit issues I'm sure you'd all be happy with your one week waiting times, fantastic services, clean safe hospital environments and empty beds waiting for the next user.
Personally, if you've paid the same in (ie % of your income/benifit/anything else you can think of as income tax etc) you deserve equal out. If from smoking I'm more likely to use the service than those who do not then either discount my income tax and let me pay for my own private medical treatment or shut up and wait your turn like every other tax payer in the uk (inc those on benifits etc as I see no distiction).
You jsut can't draw the line! If I never bother looking when I cross the road cuz I don't care but one day get run over I'm still entitled to treatment from the service I fund no matter how careless I deliberately was.
With regard to prioritisation, although I understand it's use there are some fundamental floors...ie...if I'm old and probably only have 2 years left in me but need a new hip, or lungs from smoking all my life, then damn why shouldn't I get them before some young athlete who's been in a car smash that also needs a hip or some 6 year old who's got some lung desease if I was waiting first? Id have funded the NHS for 45 years and think that would make me just as deserving as anyone else. Prioritisation sucks.
Sit down, take your turn, pray they manage it FIFO (first in, first out) and stop yer whinging. You could be in America with 40% income tax and no real national health service to speak of. Count your blessings you bunch of moaners.
If an much emphasis was put into the operating efficiency of the NHS and ridding some of the huuuuuuge wastes that they have from operating a bungling archaic system as they put into prioritisation and "who deserves more" and other bullshit issues I'm sure you'd all be happy with your one week waiting times, fantastic services, clean safe hospital environments and empty beds waiting for the next user.
Let's relight this forum
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Excellent example Stone.
My answer would be that-
unicycling from A to B is no more likely to result in injury than cycling form A to B, or walking from A to B etc- by unicycling, i am not increasing my risk of injury. Whereas smoking is proven to considerably increase risk of cancer etc.
(I'll point out that I'm not saying all unicycling is low-risk, but I personally use it for transport and mild-off-roading, rather than Kris Holm style ankle-breaking drops)
Indeed, by unicycling, which is a superb form of exercise which has all the benefits of any cardiovascular training, and is very good for core/abdominal stability etc; I am actually decreasing the chances of me requiring hospital treatment in the future.
You should maybe relax a little- I've not really heard any 'whinging' in the last few posts, and the only one that comes across as moaning, is yours
Let me make it clear here that I'm not condoning denying treatment to smokers.
I'm talking about specific examples where aspects of a patients physical condition or lifestyle means that a given medical treatment (of limited availability) would be considerably less successful on them, than it would be one someone else.
In that situation a choice must be made.
It seems to me that a good factor to take into account is the chance of the treatments success.
I'll give a specific example- throat cancer.
A patient will be assessed for surgery, and many will be turned down on the basis that their tumour is too advanced for surgery- in the doctors opinion, it is simply a waste of time to operate on it.
This frees up the operation for those who do have a chance of benefitting from the op.
Presumably, most here would see that as unproblematic?
Going further, a patient who is grossly overweight may be a low priority, as they are likely to die during the op. They will probably be told to get their weight down to a level which gives them a chance of surviving it.
Similarly, there are issues with heavy smokers, as smoking causes cancer, it is not a good thing to be doing prior to a throat cancer operation, or afterwards during the recovery.
Written by:
Or should OWD fall from his uni cycle. Will he say don't treat me, because no-one need to ride a uni cycle.
Excellent example Stone.
My answer would be that-
unicycling from A to B is no more likely to result in injury than cycling form A to B, or walking from A to B etc- by unicycling, i am not increasing my risk of injury. Whereas smoking is proven to considerably increase risk of cancer etc.
(I'll point out that I'm not saying all unicycling is low-risk, but I personally use it for transport and mild-off-roading, rather than Kris Holm style ankle-breaking drops)
Indeed, by unicycling, which is a superb form of exercise which has all the benefits of any cardiovascular training, and is very good for core/abdominal stability etc; I am actually decreasing the chances of me requiring hospital treatment in the future.
Written by: dunc
Sit down, take your turn, pray they manage it FIFO (first in, first out) and stop yer whinging. You could be in America with 40% income tax and no real national health service to speak of. Count your blessings you bunch of moaners.
You should maybe relax a little- I've not really heard any 'whinging' in the last few posts, and the only one that comes across as moaning, is yours
Let me make it clear here that I'm not condoning denying treatment to smokers.
I'm talking about specific examples where aspects of a patients physical condition or lifestyle means that a given medical treatment (of limited availability) would be considerably less successful on them, than it would be one someone else.
In that situation a choice must be made.
It seems to me that a good factor to take into account is the chance of the treatments success.
I'll give a specific example- throat cancer.
A patient will be assessed for surgery, and many will be turned down on the basis that their tumour is too advanced for surgery- in the doctors opinion, it is simply a waste of time to operate on it.
This frees up the operation for those who do have a chance of benefitting from the op.
Presumably, most here would see that as unproblematic?
Going further, a patient who is grossly overweight may be a low priority, as they are likely to die during the op. They will probably be told to get their weight down to a level which gives them a chance of surviving it.
Similarly, there are issues with heavy smokers, as smoking causes cancer, it is not a good thing to be doing prior to a throat cancer operation, or afterwards during the recovery.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Nice to see you took so much from the post Dave
Nice to see you took so much from the post Dave
Let's relight this forum
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
The idea of prioritizing medical treatment based on lifestyle may seem logical but you have to ask yourselves, as a society, just how far down that road do you want to go?
Who's going to make the decisions? and based on what?
I can think of a host of risky activities that I'm not involved in, activities that may result in hospitalization, but do I think people involved in those activities should be denied medical care, or surcharged?,,,,,,,no.
Substitute the word motorcycle for the word unicycle in the above example, where does that leave you? Subjective to your opinion on motorcycles.
The idea of prioritizing medical treatment based on lifestyle may seem logical but you have to ask yourselves, as a society, just how far down that road do you want to go?
Who's going to make the decisions? and based on what?
I can think of a host of risky activities that I'm not involved in, activities that may result in hospitalization, but do I think people involved in those activities should be denied medical care, or surcharged?,,,,,,,no.
Substitute the word motorcycle for the word unicycle in the above example, where does that leave you? Subjective to your opinion on motorcycles.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
okay this thread went on a bit since i last read it!
a few hypothetical questions on the current theme (i.e. prioritising medical treatment based on lifestyle choices):
should i receive reduced priority on say respiritory illnesses medical treatments if have chosen to live my whole life in a city where smog has had an effect on my health?
that question is quite obviously leading towards the question: where does one draw the line?
is eating fast food a lifestyle choice that should lead to reduced medical rights?
is being injured in a car crash a reason to be depioritised?
after all, a unicycle is a much safer and healthy way to travel and it is a choice to use a car over safer and less dangerous forms of transport...
dave really - where do you get the idea that unicycling on a road is as safe a method of transport as walking?
and showing that 'statistically' it is as safe if not safer than walking/bicycling will not reinforce your 'fact' in the slightest
if i am genetically predisposed to a disease, does this increase or decrease my place in the priority list?
how about if i am an ex-smoker but get a smoking related illness in later life - would i still be eligable for full medical treatment rights or would the fact that i used to smoke put me in the same boat as all the other smokers being refused treatment?
dunc's example sums it up pretty well i think:
"With regard to prioritisation, although I understand it's use there are some fundamental flaws...ie...if I'm old and probably only have 2 years left in me but need a new hip, or lungs from smoking all my life, then damn why shouldn't I get them before some young athlete who's been in a car smash that also needs a hip or some 6 year old who's got some lung desease if I was waiting first? Id have funded the NHS for 45 years and think that would make me just as deserving as anyone else. Prioritisation sucks."
finally, coming back on topic slightly:
dave, i do not think this is in any way a 'fact':
"a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it."
your arguments preceding and following this presume that the only reason for recreational drug use is that a person is 'unhappy' in some way or is otherwise feeling a need to use those drugs.
i don't think anyone was asserting that humans need recreational drugs to enjoy life but rather that they choose to take them for the experiences they offer.
compare and contrast:
i don't need to listen to music while i'm snowboarding, but most of the time, i prefer to.
i don't need to smoke spliffs when socialising with my friends, but most of the time, i prefer to.
cole. x
okay this thread went on a bit since i last read it!
a few hypothetical questions on the current theme (i.e. prioritising medical treatment based on lifestyle choices):
should i receive reduced priority on say respiritory illnesses medical treatments if have chosen to live my whole life in a city where smog has had an effect on my health?
that question is quite obviously leading towards the question: where does one draw the line?
is eating fast food a lifestyle choice that should lead to reduced medical rights?
is being injured in a car crash a reason to be depioritised?
after all, a unicycle is a much safer and healthy way to travel and it is a choice to use a car over safer and less dangerous forms of transport...
dave really - where do you get the idea that unicycling on a road is as safe a method of transport as walking?
and showing that 'statistically' it is as safe if not safer than walking/bicycling will not reinforce your 'fact' in the slightest
if i am genetically predisposed to a disease, does this increase or decrease my place in the priority list?
how about if i am an ex-smoker but get a smoking related illness in later life - would i still be eligable for full medical treatment rights or would the fact that i used to smoke put me in the same boat as all the other smokers being refused treatment?
dunc's example sums it up pretty well i think:
"With regard to prioritisation, although I understand it's use there are some fundamental flaws...ie...if I'm old and probably only have 2 years left in me but need a new hip, or lungs from smoking all my life, then damn why shouldn't I get them before some young athlete who's been in a car smash that also needs a hip or some 6 year old who's got some lung desease if I was waiting first? Id have funded the NHS for 45 years and think that would make me just as deserving as anyone else. Prioritisation sucks."
finally, coming back on topic slightly:
dave, i do not think this is in any way a 'fact':
"a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it."
your arguments preceding and following this presume that the only reason for recreational drug use is that a person is 'unhappy' in some way or is otherwise feeling a need to use those drugs.
i don't think anyone was asserting that humans need recreational drugs to enjoy life but rather that they choose to take them for the experiences they offer.
compare and contrast:
i don't need to listen to music while i'm snowboarding, but most of the time, i prefer to.
i don't need to smoke spliffs when socialising with my friends, but most of the time, i prefer to.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
It's all so complex, perhaps we need to re-think it all. A new problem related, in part, to the increasing amount of fat in patients' buttocks has been identified.
Fat buttocks 'stop injections'. FATTER rear ends are causing many drug injections to miss their mark, requiring longer needles to reach buttock muscle, researchers said today.
It's all so complex, perhaps we need to re-think it all. A new problem related, in part, to the increasing amount of fat in patients' buttocks has been identified.
Fat buttocks 'stop injections'. FATTER rear ends are causing many drug injections to miss their mark, requiring longer needles to reach buttock muscle, researchers said today.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Check my post, I never made any comments concerning unicycling on a road- I said that the type of unicycling I do is as safe as walking/cycling; currently, I do not unicycle on roads.
Fair comment- taken as an isolated statement, it is flawed.
Let me re-phrase it as-
a. "a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use"
which I put forward as a solid fact
and
b. "a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it."
which I will put forward as my opinion.
Where a. is concerned, presumably it's non-controversial and you wouldn't disagree with it? Certainly, I'm living a happy and enjoyable life without using recreational drugs.
Where b, is concerned; like I said I'm calling it my opinion, but I happen to believe strongly in it, based on what I've experienced when using recreational drugs, and what I've seen in others.
No. I think that habitual long-term users of recreational drugs, particularly tobacco, are deluded as to their true motivations for using.
Especially in the case of addicts and people whose levels of use is damaging, that delusion is extreme, and they are in no position to understand the true roots of their motivation for using.
For example, as a 30-a-day smoker, in the early phase I was deluded, in that I thought I smoked because I enjoyed it, and that I 'chose' to smoke.
I was wrong. Later on, I knew I smoked only because I was addicted, yet was still subject to delusion.
It was only when I was completely free, and a non smoker of several years, that I completely understood the nature of that delusion.
------------------
I think there's some confusion arising in this, and other threads, because we are talking about several distinct drugs.
I endeavour to be clear when making statements, so don't assume that because I say something dogmatic about cigarette addicts, that I mean it to apply in any way to weed; if I want to to apply also to weed, I will say so.
Also, note my frequent use of 'long-term, heavy/moderate cigarette smokers' (for example)- I don't use such qualifying phrases for decoration, they are there to identify that I'm not talking about occasional smokers.
It's totally pointless arguing with things I haven't said
Written by: Coleman
dave really - where do you get the idea that unicycling on a road is as safe a method of transport as walking?
Check my post, I never made any comments concerning unicycling on a road- I said that the type of unicycling I do is as safe as walking/cycling; currently, I do not unicycle on roads.
Written by: Coleman
dave, i do not think this is in any way a 'fact':
"a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it."
Fair comment- taken as an isolated statement, it is flawed.
Let me re-phrase it as-
a. "a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use"
which I put forward as a solid fact
and
b. "a happy and enjoyable life is not only possible without any recreational drug use, but is facilitated by it."
which I will put forward as my opinion.
Where a. is concerned, presumably it's non-controversial and you wouldn't disagree with it? Certainly, I'm living a happy and enjoyable life without using recreational drugs.
Where b, is concerned; like I said I'm calling it my opinion, but I happen to believe strongly in it, based on what I've experienced when using recreational drugs, and what I've seen in others.
Written by: Coleman
your arguments preceding and following this presume that the only reason for recreational drug use is that a person is 'unhappy' in some way or is otherwise feeling a need to use those drugs.
i don't think anyone was asserting that humans need recreational drugs to enjoy life but rather that they choose to take them for the experiences they offer.
No. I think that habitual long-term users of recreational drugs, particularly tobacco, are deluded as to their true motivations for using.
Especially in the case of addicts and people whose levels of use is damaging, that delusion is extreme, and they are in no position to understand the true roots of their motivation for using.
For example, as a 30-a-day smoker, in the early phase I was deluded, in that I thought I smoked because I enjoyed it, and that I 'chose' to smoke.
I was wrong. Later on, I knew I smoked only because I was addicted, yet was still subject to delusion.
It was only when I was completely free, and a non smoker of several years, that I completely understood the nature of that delusion.
------------------
I think there's some confusion arising in this, and other threads, because we are talking about several distinct drugs.
I endeavour to be clear when making statements, so don't assume that because I say something dogmatic about cigarette addicts, that I mean it to apply in any way to weed; if I want to to apply also to weed, I will say so.
Also, note my frequent use of 'long-term, heavy/moderate cigarette smokers' (for example)- I don't use such qualifying phrases for decoration, they are there to identify that I'm not talking about occasional smokers.
It's totally pointless arguing with things I haven't said
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
cheers for clearing those up dave.
that just leaves the main points from my last post outstanding:
cole. x
cheers for clearing those up dave.
that just leaves the main points from my last post outstanding:
Written by: coleman
a few hypothetical questions on the current theme (i.e. prioritising medical treatment based on lifestyle choices):
should i receive reduced priority on say respiritory illnesses medical treatments if have chosen to live my whole life in a city where smog has had an effect on my health?
that question is quite obviously leading towards the question: where does one draw the line?
is eating fast food a lifestyle choice that should lead to reduced medical rights?
is being injured in a car crash a reason to be depioritised?
after all, a unicycle is a much safer and healthy way to travel and it is a choice to use a car over safer and less dangerous forms of transport...
if i am genetically predisposed to a disease, does this increase or decrease my place in the priority list?
how about if i am an ex-smoker but get a smoking related illness in later life - would i still be eligable for full medical treatment rights or would the fact that i used to smoke put me in the same boat as all the other smokers being refused treatment?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Bear in mind Cole, that what you consider the 'main points' in your post, are not necessarily to ones I consider to be the main ones I address in my reply.
I tend to prioritise dealing with points that claim I said something which I actually didn't
But, here goes-
1. should i receive reduced priority on say respiritory illnesses medical treatments if have chosen to live my whole life in a city where smog has had an effect on my health?
No.
2. that question is quite obviously leading towards the question: where does one draw the line?
Depends on the exact circumstances. 'Where to draw the line' is a problem in many issues, and the option of 'not drawing a line at all' is generally not the best option.
3. is eating fast food a lifestyle choice that should lead to reduced medical rights?
No, unless you're eating so much fast food that your health is ruined to such an extent that medical treatment is going to be substantially hindered
4. is being injured in a car crash a reason to be depioritised?
No.
5. if i am genetically predisposed to a disease, does this increase or decrease my place in the priority list?
Generally no- but obviously if your genetic condition makes a particular operation substantially more likely to fail, then, in that scenario, you will be deprioritised- not on the basis of your genetic condition, but purely using the same grounds that apply to everyone.
6. how about if i am an ex-smoker but get a smoking related illness in later life - would i still be eligable for full medical treatment rights or would the fact that i used to smoke put me in the same boat as all the other smokers being refused treatment?
I would imagine that you'll be eligable- the criteria for refusing treatment to some smokers (which, incidently, are not being postulated- they are standard practice now) is that their smoking either cuts the chances of an operations success, or that their continuing smoking negates the effect of treatment. As an ex-smoker, those will not apply to you.
Bear in mind Cole, that what you consider the 'main points' in your post, are not necessarily to ones I consider to be the main ones I address in my reply.
I tend to prioritise dealing with points that claim I said something which I actually didn't
But, here goes-
1. should i receive reduced priority on say respiritory illnesses medical treatments if have chosen to live my whole life in a city where smog has had an effect on my health?
No.
2. that question is quite obviously leading towards the question: where does one draw the line?
Depends on the exact circumstances. 'Where to draw the line' is a problem in many issues, and the option of 'not drawing a line at all' is generally not the best option.
3. is eating fast food a lifestyle choice that should lead to reduced medical rights?
No, unless you're eating so much fast food that your health is ruined to such an extent that medical treatment is going to be substantially hindered
4. is being injured in a car crash a reason to be depioritised?
No.
5. if i am genetically predisposed to a disease, does this increase or decrease my place in the priority list?
Generally no- but obviously if your genetic condition makes a particular operation substantially more likely to fail, then, in that scenario, you will be deprioritised- not on the basis of your genetic condition, but purely using the same grounds that apply to everyone.
6. how about if i am an ex-smoker but get a smoking related illness in later life - would i still be eligable for full medical treatment rights or would the fact that i used to smoke put me in the same boat as all the other smokers being refused treatment?
I would imagine that you'll be eligable- the criteria for refusing treatment to some smokers (which, incidently, are not being postulated- they are standard practice now) is that their smoking either cuts the chances of an operations success, or that their continuing smoking negates the effect of treatment. As an ex-smoker, those will not apply to you.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [denver leagalise * weed] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > denver leagalises weed! [156 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com